Thursday, April 12, 2007

Why no UFO observations by (truly) famous people?

Sure, there have been UFO sightings by contemporaneous celebrities (Jackie Gleason, Arthur Godfrey, John Lennon) and politicians (Jimmy Carter, former Senator Richard Russell of Georgia) and one in the 1490s by Christopher Columbus, but no others by the historically gifted and greats of civilization.

Famous writers would certainly have noted any strange apparitions they experienced; that’s what writers do.

No renown mathematician or scientist (except for Halley of comet fame) has seen a UFO either.

Why is it always persons on the fringe of society who experience UFOs?

(Yes, we know that we’ve posited ufologists have never seen a UFO either, but that fringe conglomeration is another matter.)

One clue to the UFO enigma may be who sees the things, and who doesn’t.

This isn’t a matter of perceptive anomalies necessarily. We think it’s something deeper, more profound perhaps, but not trans- cendental since UFO observers are, by and large, a common lot – not in the same league as the cultural icons named above.

There comes a time when the old investigative paradigms have to be jettisoned, since they haven’t worked, obviously, and a new approach proffered, no matter how painful that might be to the egos of those who’ve invested much of their lives in the study of UFOs, or how hurtful it might be for UFO observers to recognize that they are not members of the cultural elite but are only a select segment of the hoi polloi.

There does seem to be something to what you are saying above. I think perhaps as an approach, for a start anyway, a database should be created to help keep track of stuff and bring seperate but possibly related things together. People of course could also use it to look for related stuff in which a computer could not be able to "see," sort of like the stuff which you mention above. Basically, we would try ("try" being the keyword) profile this whatever it all is (if indeed it really is anything at all---seems to be though).

Presidents Reagan and Carter, for two, come to mind, as having said publicly they observed "UFOs".

Interesting that you highlight the basis of the UFO conundrum, even as you defend it: Reagan and Carter said publicly that they observed UFOs. That is what public personas do when they see something in the sky: they state in public that they saw a UFO. Or not.

Reagan was a dottering old fool who came forward to take responsibility for the dissolution of the Soviet "Evil Empire" when in fact the process leading to its ultimate demise had been at work years before he even had designs on the White House. And somebody tried to cap him. For this he is canonized, even though his "trickle-down" economics were grossly unsuccessful.

So, the great man "said he saw a UFO." BFD. Means nothing, except in the world of wide-eye WOOs, who use "false appeals to authority" rather than hard data to bolster their opinions.

Meanwhile, the Carter sighting has been down the drain for years, and it is only the obstinance of wide-eyed WOOs who refuse to let their "pets" die that keep it alive.

As for anonymous statement:

"UFOs through the Ages: a timeline." The superficiality of your outlook shows through. Historical personas did not see UFOs. They saw signs and portents in the sky which puzzled them. If you're unable to make the finer distinctions between "signs and portents" of a bygone day and the "UFOs" of UFO pop culture, then you're wasting your time. Take up stamp collecting - because divorcing UFOs of the past from their historical context, and divorcing UFOs of the present from their socio-cultural context is merely the collecting of bright baubles to try to impress other stamp collectors. That's why scientists continue to ignore y'all - because your ideas are simplistic and superfical, an y'all are nerds.

While I'm "woofully" waiting for the UFO iCon's to consider posting a prior, rather pissed off, comment of mine directed towards them, I guess I can entertain myself responding to you, masked manikin.

First, Reagan's sighting occurred when he was governor of California, long before he showed any symptoms of Alzheimer's syndrome, and was witnessed from his plane by others, also. Got that?

And yes, I know Carter's sighting has been debunked, or at least there have been meager, unscientific efforts to dismiss it.Carter has learned not to speak of it, thanks to the ridicule factor, but if he was asked privately by someone he knew well, I'd bet he'd still say he saw a UFO/UAP, and not the "evening star".

Carter's sighting occurred when he was governor, also, of Georgia. There were 10 other witnesses to that one. Read Carter's original sighting report (on the net), and then tell me it was just Venus he and the others saw.

You are also mistaken in the thrust of your argument: this is not a wooey "false appeal to authority"; my comments were in reference to the _premise_ of this particular blog posting, re: (truly) famous people, before the iRRRigitating guys belatedly qualified what they meant by "famous", which, like your comment, is just more surreal sophistry, encapsulating like a poison pill it's own contradiction to logic, denial, and intellectual deficit by the very nature of said statements.

I mean, I don't even have to try much, as you do the job fairly well for me. I think a new term is in order, the opposite of what you term "woos"--how about "wees", for small-minded, wheezing, hilarious, pseufo-skeptics, oh ye of little wisdom or scientific honesty. Check dictionary.com for the definition of manikin vs. mannequin, btw. It also applies, wee-man.

And, what has Reagan, as President, and the "Evil Empire" or "trickle-down" economic theory got to do with anything relevant here?

Gah! It's so frustrating trying to deal with folks like you rationally. It's like you just don't get it. Or pretend not to, and just keep on presenting easily refuted statements of pseudo skepti-bunkerish b.s. I'd like to deal with a real skeptic, as I consider myself one, depending on the circumstances. This woo vs. wee absurdity reminds of some Dr. Seuss fable, for children. Now I truly understand why Vallee stays above and away from the fray.

Tell you what, I think all of us here might do better by trying to stay on track, and I include myself. I, too, can get kind of emotional and tangential, if provoked. I will try to be more civil, and merely stick to the facts, post-post, as it were. For now, I feel I have to fight the faintly feeble "luminescence" of your comments with a flame-thrower of reason and fact.

-----------------------------------

"Interesting that you highlight the basis of the UFO conundrum, even as you defend it: Reagan and Carter said publicly that they observed UFOs. That is what public personas do when they see something in the sky: they state in public that they saw a UFO. Or not."

WTF? Highlight the basis of the UFO conundrum even as I defend it? You'll have to explain that to me a bit more clearly before I can understand what you're implying, or something. And, just what is the "basis for the UFO conundrum"? I'm dying to know.

Riddle me this, punster--is it insoluble or just incommensurable? Whatever, it just seems like a paradoxical, perplexing, puzzle to this peon, comrade. 8^}

"That is what public personas do when they see something in the sky: they state in public that they saw a UFO. Or not."

Yeah, either they do or they don't. I think that about covers all the bases. And so?

But what the hell is that supposed to actually mean? Is this some EST-ian lingo, like you don't know what you don't know? But that you can at least know that you don't know? I'm perplexed, once again --you must be too smart for me.

BTW, there is a third alternative to a public "persona" who may have seen a "ufo" speaking publicly about it or not--in 1955, Senator Richard B. Russell, Jr. Chairman of the Armed Services Committee at the time, and at least three others in his party, saw two "ufos" while on a train in Russia on a fact-finding trip, and never spoke publicly about it, except to say they couldn't talk about it after consulting with the intell boys when asked.

They also did not stay completely silent. They reported the incident to the USAF (and later the FBI and CIA got involved),which resulted in at least 12 Top Secret reports or records, only declassified in 1985 as the result of a FOIA request.

See: ufocasebook.com/senatorsrussia.htmlfor further details.

Yaaawwnn. I'm bored. That's all for now. Throw me some _real_ meat next time, OK? I'm hungry for a real, substantial debate. Bring it on! ;^}

Despite the near-sighted Venus watchers, seeing IS believing. And while surely all reported UFO's are not extraterrestrially controlled, neither are they all secret military craft, weather balloons, pelicans, or the host of other "credible" alternative answers provided by debunkers and propaganda purveyors.

It defies rational analysis to assume that certified pilot(S), experienced radar operator(S), numerous Generals, colonels, presidents and other non-delusional people in positions of great responsibility, could all mistake a kite, cloud or evening star for a metallic object with defined shapes, lights and unusual flight patterns.

If the "debunkers" applied the same level of assumption on the reports of sightings as they do on their alternate theories, they would not come up with the ridiculous alternatives that they claim are factual. Or, if they tempered their smug and superior attitudes with a little humility and open-minded original thought, maybe they could open their eyes long enough to see some "pelicans" too.

Having just seen an unusual flying orange triangle in February, at 30,000 feet an hour east of L.A., I know that seeing is beleiving. Line up all the debunkers and so-called scientists end to end with theories, and they all amount to hot air. No amount of "credibility" changes the facts of what many people have seen. And, if seeing is NOT beleiving, how would these same skeptics respond to an "expert" claiming that their mother must not have given birth to them, since there are a billion other possible answers.......(Of course you can't say you are sure SHE is your Mom. After all, do you even remember seeing her during your birth?)

Only one answer is the true answer, and while the exact nature of UFO's remains a mystery, at least to the general public, the fact of their existence is so thoroughly documented by millions of eye witnesses, that it is not worth debating with close minded "we-are-aloner's".

A database may be a good idea, but... would you reveal your sighting, if you were subject to public ridicule....or worse....if it made the front page of the New York Times or CNN, along with the smirks and "he must be losing it" analyses? This is exactly why those people in positions of responsibility should be considered MORE beleivable. They had much more to lose by telling the truth.

Our world is so full of wonders and amazing realities, and as a civilization we have just begun to scratch the surface of the realities outside our little world. It does not require much imagination to ponder the unknown.....but it takes a considerable amount of aarogance & ignorance, in my opinion, to assume that "we" got it all figured out so quickly in our infancy of understanding the universe.

Seems that those in 'authority" are making the same mistakes that have brought down one great civilization after another.... the illusion (or delusion) of self-importance.

Second. I saw a UFO as a Boyscoutalong with my father, an Attorneyand a gas station attendant.

Damn I hate being on the fringes of society (pause for effect of sarcasm to smack).

Its also might arrogant and some would even say damn ignorant to assume that ordinary people (now apparently categorized as "fringe" nice assumption by the way) cannotexperience somthing "transendental".

Why is it always persons on the FRINGE OF SOCIETY ( like an attorney and a boyscout huh? )who experience UFOs?

One clue to the UFO enigma may be who sees the things, and who doesn’t....

"...We think it’s something deeper, more profound perhaps, but not trans- cendental since UFO observers are, by and large, a common lot – not in the same league as the cultural icons named above..."

So reading the above quotes. Unless now YOU are being sarcastic it would seem you imply just what I said you imply. That UFO people are fringe nuts. If not (seriously)please explain where I missed WHAT YOU TYPED. Please.

Please compare:We think our post actually intimates thatit's the common folk who experience things "transcendental"and not famous folks who are left in the dark as it were.

with:This doesn't mean that those seeing UFOs are loony. It means that UFOs do not, apparently, have a transcendental essence.

See my confusion now?

By the way I see where you're going with this. I get it. UFOs are appearing to a certain segment of the population for certain reasons, and this may be a clue. OK.

Trying not to beat a dead horse my only point was you said people on the fringes are those who see UFOs (see your own original post) and I was trying to point out that this could be construed as an insult to some. Ie..attorneys etc.. It was a use of words disagreement more than anything.

"One clue to the UFO enigma may be who sees the things, and who doesn’t...."

your comment re: "No UFO observations by (truly) famous people" betrays at least one assumption. You assume that cultural elites are at the same liberty to discuss what they might see as the hoi polloi. This is manifestly not the case. One of the requirements for certain accomplishments is a certain discretion. Whether the "Truly" great see such things remains unknown. What is known is merely that, according to you, they are never reported as such.These two matters are not same thing at all.Anyone with an appreciation of the dangers of politics and power can supply you with relevant theories concerning this apparant anomaly. And those with a familiarity with history and letters may supply sufficient occasions where information- and even fantasy- was supplied only when the identification of the origin was safely obscured. Unfortunately, history has been loathe to reward or even accept persons known to be receptive to peculiar visions; yet this situation is barely begun to be recognized as unscientific even today.Let us then instead recognize as True those whose bravery is told- despite fashions in the society of mere men.

Professor Tombaugh, who discovered Pluto, had multiple telescopes in his back yard. He observed UFOs 3 times and had other witnesses with him for at least one of them. One of them conformed so little to either any known natural phenomenon or man-made craft that he reported it to the FBI who promised they would not divulge it. Unfortunately they did. I have a handwritten letter from him to myself in which he states he will not discuss his experiences because of the threats of violence he received FROM OTHER 'SCIENTISTS' after a Life reporter found out about just ONE of them from a Life magazine article. Perhaps scientists DO see them, but wisely do not divulge these sightings. Check Dr. Urey's wikipedia entry. Is a Nobel Prize Winner enough of a scientist for you? Sorry, more details in a book yet to come.